Carter Rucks misunderstanding

Given that Carter Ruck apparantly read this forum it might be useful to point out an error in their understanding of the events surrounding this case.

Madeleine,s parents both state they were not at the apartment when their daughter disappeared.

They also assert that they were not the last people known to their daughter to enter the apartment before the discovery Madeleine was missing,they cannot claim to know what happened to her,they can only speculate in the same way that any other person who wasnt there can speculate Their relationship to the victim does not,of itself ,make their speculation or theory any more credible than any other.

The MCcanns ,via their PR mouthpiece have accepted that their was no sign of forced entry to the apartment,they also maintain that the childrens bed room window and shutter were closed when they left for their evening out.
AN abduction by stranger would necessitate knowledge of the layout of the flat ,knowledge of the bedroom and the bed Madeleine was sleeping in,knowledge that the parents were not in the flat and/or that the patio door was left open and a reason to open the bedroom window and shutters despite it not being the point of entry. The reports of various people seen observing the flat are all in the morning which would not help anyone know how the parents behaved at night. If Madeleine was abducted it is more feasible that there was more than one abductor ,that if it was planned there was a vehicle involved as parading a child around the streets does not constitute a plan . The stranger abductor choosing a moment when the street was busy with holiday makers chatting and people checking and opening a window when he had just walked through a door makes no sense. What makes even less sense,is that the parents insist that is exactly what happened ,threaten to sue anyone who doesnt agree whilst simultaneously insisting they dont know what happened.Why you at Carter Ruck repeat the insistance without question is,sadly ,more easily understood.

They also assert that they were not the last people known to their daughter to enter the apartment before the discovery Madeleine was missing,they cannot claim to know what happened to her,they can only speculate in the same way that any other person who wasnt there can speculate Their relationship to the victim does not,of itself ,make their speculation or theory any more credible than any other.

There is not one scrap evidence of abduction. Yet, the McCanns will attempt to discredit and disregard any person, even professionals i.e. Lee Rainbow, Prof David Barclay, Paulo Sargento etc, that posits an alternative thesis.

For example -

Mr. Rainbow, NPIA profiler expert, doesn’t approve of psychologists and psychiatrists offering speculative comments on high-profile cases -

These individuals should be acutely aware from experience that the information available within the public domain during investigations is a deliberately restricted subset of the known facts in the case. To base speculation on such limited information demonstrates a disregard for expected standards of scientific integrity

So it seems Mr. Rainbow was privy to information many others were not, the context of which led him to believe that Mr McCann warranted further investigation -

Mr. Rainbow expressed in his report, ‘a strong conviction of the parents involvement into their daughters disappearence ‘ and that both Kate and Gerry McCann ‘ endeavored to convey a positive image ‘.

And then we have Prof Barclay -

The case was also reviewed by the notable forensic investigator Professor David Barclay of Robert Gordon University. His opinion was that the police were right to consider the McCanns as suspects and that the child is probably dead

And then we have Mr. Sargento, a criminal psychologist at Lusófona Universityi n Lisbon -

Sargento produced in October 2007 a 3D reconstruction of events at the Ocean Club on the evening Madeleine disappeared. His view was that kidnapping would be inconsistent with the evidence.

It is little wonder then that so many doubt the McCanns version of events, doubt that Madeleien was abducted. Professionals operating in fields such as Rainbow, Barclay and Sargento appear to be somewhat unwilling to put forward their views on the McCann case. I find this interesting indeed, as one would think, in fact I know, that if the consensus was that Madeleine was indeed abducted and her parents innocent of wrong doing they would be open and honest dialogue to that effect.

What I fail to understand is why they insist on saying that contents of process files are libellous?They may not agree to them, but fact remains those were undeletable facts of police investigation.

How can they know for certainty Maddie was abducted when not a shred of evidence supported their theory. Abduction by stranger from a bedroom is rare and their constant checking system empecher the window of opportunity?

Looking on the internet is not going to bring her back unless they think a cyberspace phantom got their daughter. Prosecuting people or threatening to do so only show the cyberspace population they are dead determined to suppress the files .....and would that look to be about themselves or Maddie may I ask CR if they are keeping their eyes peeled on this space.

If they are sure that the PJ are wrong and they are SO right, sue the PJ, sue even the UK police being assistant investigators for failing to do something about it. Targeting truthseekers wont solve the problem after all their rotten reputation will outlive the extinction of cyberspace news if ever there is such a day.

Anyway their coupability had been reported by other media machinery globally and more than half the world populations are aware they were suspects in their daughter disappearance because there were tons of circumstantial evidence supporting that. Even population on the other side of the earth where the sun rises first have learnt of missing Madeleine and their possible involvement. Their dubious reputation is on par with worldcup, to make an analogy, whether they like it or not.

Not enough evidence to charge anyone does not mean they are exonerated so long as Maddie remains missing. Why dont they use the funds wisely to search for her. Didnt their PIs say she was languishing in a lair in a lawless area. IF on the other hand their PIs are rubbish, then do something about it. Lining the lawyers' pocket doesnt do them any favours, au contraire people will view their desperation to suppress the files as reflection of action of someone guilty.

I am only speaking from my own perspective, if I am truly innocent, in their shoes, I wouldnt be bothered what people want to believe, in fact I wont be able to stop people's free volition of thoughts. I may feel hurt by people's disbelief but I wont waste time and money pursuing or prosecuting them because whatever their thoughts, it cannot affect my innocent. Crucially 'innocence of a person' is an unchange fact as unchangeable as the Earth will continue to turn on its axis and cannot be traded or compromise just because people thought differently so arresting people's action is not going to restore their innocent. Either they are innocent or NOT innocent. They cant buy that - silencing people is not going to change people's view or restore their reputation. Using lawyers to bully people is after all limited to their means, so in a nutshell effectively they are viewing their innocent as a limited commodity peg to their means to retain it. What a pathetic way to prove one's innonence.

So a message to CR if they are reading this:
Advise your client to find their Daughter and NOT find those who disbelieved them because the latter won't bring back Madeleine. Tell them their PRIME priority should be to ask the PJ to reopen the case - that's the best way to silent their critics and it cost nothing.

Exoneration is free of legal cost. Tell them to kick down the PJ's door dragging the press and half HMG there as they proved they had the power to do so by their wonderful contacts, and demand of the PJ "ELIMINATE US" or "ARREST US" at the same time promise them your full cooperation. That's the best way to prove their innocence. Anything short of that is very indequate. Who is afraid of who - scatty pants!

Me think they are protesting too much. They should be grateful for small mercies.